1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Lawrence Sinclair,
Plaintiff,
vs.
TubeSockTedD, mzmolly and
OWNINGLIARS,
Defendants.
_______________________________________/
Case No.: 1:08-cv-00434-HHK
PLAINTIFF’S OMNIBUS REPLY TO D.E.#S
23, 24, 26, 27, 29-2 & 30
Plaintiff, Lawrence Sinclair, by and through his undersigned counsel files this, his Omnibus
Reply to D.E.#s 23, 24, 26, 27, 29 & 30, and states:
I. DEFENDANT MZMOLLY’S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO COMPEL RULE 26(F) CONFERENCE [D.E. #23]
Like a school boy running to the teacher with material misrepresentations regarding
telephone discussion between undersigned counsel and Mr. Levy, the substance of Mr. Levy’s
argument is directed once again towards ad hominem attacks.
Mr. Levy’s verbosity aside, the simple fact is that the motivation of the Defendant Mzmolly
is to delay and divert this case from its natural course by hiding from this Court’s jurisdiction while
claiming this Court doesn’t have jurisdiction. Defendant MzMolly can’t have it both ways.
II. DEFENDANT TUBESOCKTEDD MOTION TO QUASH DIGG.COM SUBPOENA [D.E.
#24 & #27] AND DIGG.COM’S MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA [D.E. #29-2]
Digg.com’s objection that the subpoena on it was not served pursuant to Rule 45(a)(2)(C)
is not well taken. That Rule states: “A subpoena must issue as follows: . . .for production or
inspection, if separate from a subpoena commanding a person's attendance, from the court for the
district where the production or inspection is to be made.” Here, pursuant to the Court’s order, the
Case 1:08-cv-00434-JDB Document 32 Filed 05/21/2008 Page 1 of 4
2
production was to be made in Washington, D.C. Hence, the subpoena was proper under Rule
45(a)(2)(C).
The other generic responses by Digg.com don’t warrant response as they are not supported
by any evidentiary support.
III. DEFENDANT “TUBESOCKTEDD” OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
DISQUALIFY COUNSEL [D.E. #26]
This Court is now faced with conflicting affidavit which require an evidentiary hearing to
resolve. Simply stated, Plaintiff has alleged speaking with “an individual named Donna, who stated
to me on the telephone that she was an attorney” and Donna Kelly who is the office administrator
of Klimaski & Associates, P.C. who has affirmed that she is not an attorney and never told anyone
she was.
More important, it is clear from Ms. Kelly’s affidavit that she was acting an agent of Mr.
Klimaski and hence Plaintiff’s communications with her were privileged. Remarkably, in that
affidavit Ms. Kelly reveals confidential communications by Plaintiff to her and her employer which
heretofore have not been publically revealed. While the liability of Klimaski & Associates, P.C. for
that grotesque breach of attorney-client privilege is not the subject of this litigation yet, the simple
fact remains that Plaintiff did communication confidential information to what is now a Defendant’s
attorney.
Last, while Mr. Beckerman claims – though not under oath – that “the Klimaski firm hasn’t
“disclosed” anything to anybody”, such an bald assertion must be put to the engine-of-truth which
is cross-examination to test its veracity.
Accordingly, Plaintiff requests an evidentiary hearing on the issues raised by the motion to
disqualify counsel.
Case 1:08-cv-00434-JDB Document 32 Filed 05/21/2008 Page 2 of 4
3
IV. DEFENDANT MZMOLLY’S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO SINCLAIR’S MOTION
FOR SANCTIONS [D.E. #30]
Notwithstanding Mr. Levy’s Herculean attempts to divert this Court from his transgressions,
the simple fact remains: Mr. Levy violated LCvR 5.4(f)(1) and (3) by his reckless and careless filing
of the Social Security number and Date of Birth of Plaintiff. In his defense, Mr. Levy once again
attempts to create a record by misrepresenting the substance of telephone calls between himself and
undersigned counsel. Additionally, Mr. Levy attempts to persuade the Court that no harm has
occurred as the confidential information of Plaintiff is purportedly available elsewhere on the world
wide web. Such arguments are facile at best.
The bottom line is this: If this Court’s privacy rules are to be more than aspirational,
significant consequence must attached to a grotesque breach of those rules. Here, the question is
not whether there should be a sanction – there must if the Rules of this Court are to be respected –
but the extent of the sanction.
Admitted by Mr. Levy is that before his improper filing, Plaintiff’s social security number
had not been publically made known. Now it is public for all time. This Court must send a message
to its Bar that such breaches of individual privacy will not be tolerated by this Court by sanctioning
Mr. Levy in the amount of One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000).
Case 1:08-cv-00434-JDB Document 32 Filed 05/21/2008 Page 3 of 4
4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that: a true and accurate copy of the foregoing was served by this Court’s
CM/ECF system upon Paul Alan Levy, Public Citizen Litigation Group, 1600 20th Street, NW,
Washington, DC 20009, Ray Beckerman, Vandenberg & Feliu LLP, 110 East 42 St., New
York, NY 10017 and James R. Klimaski, Klimaski & Associates, P.C., 1625 Massachusetts
Avenue NW, Suite 500, Washington, DC 20036-2245, this May 21, 2008.
MONTGOMERY BLAIR SIBLEY
Counsel for Plaintiff
1629 K Street, Suite 300
Washington, D.C. 20006
202-508-3699
202-478-0371 Fax
By: /s/ Montgomery Blair Sibley
Montgomery Blair Sibley
D.C. Bar #464488
Case 1:08-cv-00434-JDB Document 32 Filed 05/21/2008 Page 4 of 4
